Xeon 5050 vs 5150

If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150 processor,
which is better?

The the system will mostly be running two or three instances of a
large non-threaded application, plus supporting users' desktops (remote
logins via vnc).

Whoever wrote:
> If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150
> processor, which is better?
>
> The the system will mostly be running two or three instances of a large
> non-threaded application, plus supporting users' desktops (remote logins
> via vnc).

The 5150... right? I mean the 50xx is for ovens and such.

Whoever wrote:
> If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150
> processor, which is better?
>

It's not even a question, always go for the 5100-series before the
5000-series. 5100 series is Core 2-based, 5000 series is Pentium 4 based.

Yousuf Khan

Whoever wrote:
> If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150
> processor, which is better?
>

I believe the 5150 is about 100 better... ;-)

> The the system will mostly be running two or three instances of a large
> non-threaded application, plus supporting users' desktops (remote logins
> via vnc).

Does "large" mean "cache-busting-paging-like-mad-large"? If so,
you might be better served to avoid P4-based processors.


Dave

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Dave Littell wrote:

> Whoever wrote:
>> If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150 processor,
>> which is better?
>>
>
> I believe the 5150 is about 100 better... ;-)
>
>> The the system will mostly be running two or three instances of a large
>> non-threaded application, plus supporting users' desktops (remote logins
>> via vnc).
>
> Does "large" mean "cache-busting-paging-like-mad-large"? If so, you might be
> better served to avoid P4-based processors.

And use what instead? Opterons? The application won't be paging
significantly -- the system should have enough memory to avoid this, but I
don't know if it is "cache-busting".

Anyway, I am kind of limited to Xeons, since I am limited to Dell and they
don't offer Opterons in servers yet.

Anyway, I went for a system with a single 5160 processor, with the intent
to add a second processor when they become somewhat cheaper.

Whoever wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Dave Littell wrote:
>
>> Whoever wrote:
>>> If one had the choice of two Xeon 5050 processors vs. one 5150
>>> processor,
>>> which is better?
>>>
>>
>> I believe the 5150 is about 100 better... ;-)
>>
>>> The the system will mostly be running two or three instances of a large
>>> non-threaded application, plus supporting users' desktops (remote
>>> logins
>>> via vnc).
>>
>> Does "large" mean "cache-busting-paging-like-mad-large"? If so, you
>> might be better served to avoid P4-based processors.
>
> And use what instead? Opterons?

Or Core-architecture CPUs, like the Xeon 5100 series. In a
cache-busting machine vision application I'm involved with now (grabbing
and processing from four VGA-res cameras simultaneously at ~190 Hz),
we're finding that a pair of Xeon 5160s outperform a pair of Opteron
285s by a fair margin.

--
Mike Smith